Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Snapchat's Big Redesign Bashed In 83 Percent of User Reviews (techcrunch.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the new-and-not-so-approved dept.

The new Snapchat redesign that jams Stories in between private messages is not receiving a whole lot of praise. "In the few countries including the U.K., Australia, and Canada where the redesign is widely available, 83 percent of App Store reviews (1,941) for the update are negative with one or two stars, according to data by mobile analytics firm Sensor Tower," reports TechCrunch. "Just 17 percent, or 391 of the reviews, give it three to five stars." From the report: The most referenced keywords in the negative reviews include "new update," "Stories," and "please fix." Meanwhile, Snapchat's Support Twitter account has been busy replying to people who hate the update and are asking to uninstall it, noting "It's not possible to revert to a previous version of Snapchat," and trying to explain where Stories are to confused users. Hopes were that the redesign could boost Snapchat's soggy revenue, which fell short of Wall Street earnings expectations in Q3 and led to a loss of $443 million. The redesign mixes Stories, where Snapchat shows ads but which have seen stagnation in sharing rates amidst competition from Instagram Stories, into the more popular messaging inbox, where Snapchat's ephemeral messaging is more differentiated and entrenched.

5 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Remember Slashdot beta? by manu0601 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is always the same story. Someone thinks the site needs to be refreshed, but users do not like change for the sake of it, especially about user interfaces.

    1. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by Baron_Yam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unless there is something wrong with the current interface, updating for the sake of it is something that keeps marketing types employed but doesn't achieve much else that's positive.

      Essentially, you're throwing away your users' familiarity with your interface and annoying them. They don't want to have to re-learn how to use your site... they want to engage the minimum possible number of brain cells required to participate.

      However, marketing folks are GOOD at marketing, and one of the things they can sell people on is the need for marketing people, and they do that by first convincing you to listen to marketing people. When they form an unholy union with sales and convince people the changes can increase revenue... look out, change is coming.

      Because it's not the users who matter, it's the customers.

    2. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is always the same story. Someone thinks the site needs to be refreshed, but users do not like change for the sake of it, especially about user interfaces.

      I don't care if the UI changes, but it needs to change to something usable.

      That Slashdot beta was so bad that I stopped visiting Slashdot altogether.
      It took me six months to realize they had reverted the beta, and that was because I accidentally followed a link.

    3. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ever notice how Amazon has basically had the same Dotcom 1.0 aesthetics forever? And how Jeff Bezos is the richest man on the planet? Maybe ridiculous interface refreshes with the latest hipster look and feel are not so good after all.

    4. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by dfm3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      GP wasn't talking about the flashy sliding stuff, but about the content layout. Things you'll still see on Amazon's website, that many other websites have eliminated in favor of "streamlining" the "user experience":

      - No hamburger menus. They still dare to hide their menus behind descriptive words.
      - Long lists actually have page numbers at the bottom, instead of infinitely scrolling.
      - Everything's black text on white, with blue links, and prices in dark red. Lots of bold text everywhere. Virtually no pale thin fonts on pastel backgrounds.
      - Not one, but TWO site maps at the bottom of the page!
      - Minimal white space. By modern "UX" design, most pages are actually considered cluttered. Not quite "Yahoo 1996" cluttered, but still very information dense.

      And you know what? It works. I can usually get from where I am to where I want to be with no more than a couple clicks, and I spend longer on each page because there's so much info to digest. That means I'm more likely to notice all the other "impulse buy" items on the sidebar, which is probably their goal.